Roehl v. Pleasants
Texas Supreme Court
Error from De Witt. The case was tried before Hon. J. J. Holt, one „of the district judges. The suit was upon a note made on the 25th February, 1861, by the defendants, payable twelve months after date to the plaintiff below, as administrator of John York’s estate, for $295 20, and a mortgage upon a tract of land purchased at administrator’s sale, which was the consideration for the note.
Read the full summary
Error from De Witt. The case was tried before Hon. J. J. Holt, one „of the district judges. The suit was upon a note made on the 25th February, 1861, by the defendants, payable twelve months after date to the plaintiff below, as administrator of John York’s estate, for $295 20, and a mortgage upon a tract of land purchased at administrator’s sale, which was the consideration for the note. The answer set up that nothing was sold by the administrator; that the claim of the estate was a mere location upon the land by virtue of an unrecommended or fraudulent certificate; and that therefore the…
1Opinion of the CourtLindsay, J.
—The appellee, who was the administrator, de bonis non, &c., of the estate of John York, deceased, brought suit against the appellant and his sureties, on a promissory note executed by them to the former administrator of said estate of John York, for the purchase of a tract of land — one-third of a league — which was sold by the said former administrator as part of the estate of his intestate. The land was sold by the administrator under a decretal order of the probate court of DeWitt county. The defense set up by appellant against a recovery on said note was, that the said administrator sold…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Crayton v. MungerTexas Supreme Court · 1852
- Williams v. McDonaldTexas Supreme Court · 1855
- Edmondson v. HartTexas Supreme Court · 1853
- Coombs v. LaneTexas Supreme Court · 1856